In the UK at least, there are many documented (on video) cases where someone posted something online and was then given an intimidating visit by police at their door in response to their speech. And people are going to jail over speech (https://www.forbes.com/sites/steveforbes/2025/09/09/people-a...).
And as for the EU, it’s obvious many of those in power want to censor. Thierry Breton, the former commissioner for internal markets, was actively trying to use regulations and intimidation to censor information. It’s not debatable, because there is clear evidence not just in regulations about misinformation but also in situations like this:
Let’s also not forget the DSA, its various rules, and how Breton often conflated casual labels of “misinformation” with the idea of illegal content as the DSA regulates. He’s clearly guilty of trying to create an EU-wide framework for what speech is allowed and not.
So I am not sure what TechDirt is even trying to do here. It’s clear there are forces pushing censorship in the continent of Europe. Trying to claim there is “no EU Internet Censorship” is a blatant lie.
> It’s clear there are forces pushing censorship in the continent of Europe.
I don't believe that the author Mike Masnick is denying the existence of pro-censorship forces within the EU, and Masnick has criticized the censorship aspects present in the DSA itself [1] (as distinguished from censorship relating to only specific interpretations and implementations of the DSA, as in Thierry Breton's case).
> Trying to claim there is “no EU Internet Censorship” is a blatant lie.
The claim was not that there is literally no EU internet censorship, but that the US federal government under the Trump administration has been claiming instances of EU internet censorship while thus far failing to identify any such instances even though the administration controlled which criteria its investigators used.
As I interpret it, the purpose of TFA is to point out that:
- The US federal government has been using instances of non-censorship as evidence of censorship (e.g. TFA cites [2], which cites [3]).
- The US federal government has censored speech in ways that the DSA could do but hasn't yet done, and the US justified its own censorship by pointing to supposedly-already-happening DSA censorship that hasn't happened.
- The EU "removed" Thierry Breton (actually, he resigned), the current US administration has yet to punish one of its own censors. (This argument is weak to the point of uselessness because Breton's resignation might be unrelated to his censorship, but it's an argument that Masnick is making.) (In place of this point, I previously made a terrible and false generalization by writing: The EU's response to EU government censorship has been more substantial than the US's response to similar US government censorship.)
The original title is:
> The Trump Admin’s Own Investigators Found No EU Internet Censorship. So They Ignored The Findings.
In the UK at least, there are many documented (on video) cases where someone posted something online and was then given an intimidating visit by police at their door in response to their speech. And people are going to jail over speech (https://www.forbes.com/sites/steveforbes/2025/09/09/people-a...).
And as for the EU, it’s obvious many of those in power want to censor. Thierry Breton, the former commissioner for internal markets, was actively trying to use regulations and intimidation to censor information. It’s not debatable, because there is clear evidence not just in regulations about misinformation but also in situations like this:
https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-elon-musk-donald-trump-in...
Let’s also not forget the DSA, its various rules, and how Breton often conflated casual labels of “misinformation” with the idea of illegal content as the DSA regulates. He’s clearly guilty of trying to create an EU-wide framework for what speech is allowed and not.
So I am not sure what TechDirt is even trying to do here. It’s clear there are forces pushing censorship in the continent of Europe. Trying to claim there is “no EU Internet Censorship” is a blatant lie.
> It’s clear there are forces pushing censorship in the continent of Europe.
I don't believe that the author Mike Masnick is denying the existence of pro-censorship forces within the EU, and Masnick has criticized the censorship aspects present in the DSA itself [1] (as distinguished from censorship relating to only specific interpretations and implementations of the DSA, as in Thierry Breton's case).
> Trying to claim there is “no EU Internet Censorship” is a blatant lie.
The claim was not that there is literally no EU internet censorship, but that the US federal government under the Trump administration has been claiming instances of EU internet censorship while thus far failing to identify any such instances even though the administration controlled which criteria its investigators used.
As I interpret it, the purpose of TFA is to point out that:
- The US federal government has been using instances of non-censorship as evidence of censorship (e.g. TFA cites [2], which cites [3]).
- The US federal government has censored speech in ways that the DSA could do but hasn't yet done, and the US justified its own censorship by pointing to supposedly-already-happening DSA censorship that hasn't happened.
- The EU "removed" Thierry Breton (actually, he resigned), the current US administration has yet to punish one of its own censors. (This argument is weak to the point of uselessness because Breton's resignation might be unrelated to his censorship, but it's an argument that Masnick is making.) (In place of this point, I previously made a terrible and false generalization by writing: The EU's response to EU government censorship has been more substantial than the US's response to similar US government censorship.)
Or summarized in one word, hypocrisy.
[1] https://www.techdirt.com/2023/01/06/if-you-dont-want-eu-styl...
[2] https://www.techdirt.com/2025/12/08/elons-crying-censorship-...
[3] https://www.techpolicy.press/the-eus-fine-against-x-is-not-a...